Whether the seizure disposition of the Republic of Korea on the goods-price claim is prior to the plaintiff's transfer.

The plaintiff asserts that the claim for the price of goods was lawfully acquired prior to the seizure of the defendant's Republic of Korea, and the defendant Republic of Korea confirmed it late and released the seizure of the claim for the price of goods.

Article 53 (Requirements for Release of Attachment)

2014da 2415 Verification of a person entitled to deposit money

IsaA

Foreign Country of Korea 3

May 15, 2014

May 29, 2014

1. On December 27, 2013, BB Co., Ltd. confirmed that the claim for payment of deposit money for KRW 26,020,413 deposited by the Daegu District Court Kimcheon- Branch of the Daegu District Court No. 1320 was filed against the Plaintiff on December 27, 2013.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts do not conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea, and the remaining Defendants do not clearly dispute this (Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act).

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are abbreviated as DefendantCC’s BBB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BBB”). With respect to the goods payment claim (hereinafter referred to as “the instant claim”) against DefendantCC’s BB Co., Ltd. (the title of the legal entity, including the parties to the instant case, is also abbreviationd in the same manner) as indicated in the following table, the Plaintiff and the Defendants acquired the claim or received an order for provisional seizure against the claim. BBB deposited KRW 26,020,413 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant deposit”). On December 27, 2013, on the ground that provisional seizure, assignment of claims, etc. are concurrent, as seen above, Article 248 of the Civil Court Act and Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 487 of the Civil Act on the ground that the said provisional seizure, assignment of claims, etc. are concurrent (hereinafter referred to as “the instant deposit”).

Where a claim is transferred doublely, the order between the assignee is determined by the date of receipt of the notification of transfer with the fixed date for the assignment of claim by the debtor or after the date of acceptance with the fixed date with the fixed date, and such legal doctrine also applies to cases where the order of provisional seizure or seizure is determined by the person executing the provisional seizure or seizure order with respect to the same claim as the assignee (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da2423, Apr. 26, 1994).

Examining the facts of recognition in accordance with the above legal principles, since the notification of the assignment of the claim of this case to the Plaintiff by DefendantCC prior to the date of service of the remaining Defendants’ provisional attachment and attachment notification, DefendantCC’s right to claim the payment of the instant deposit belongs to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff has a benefit to confirm it.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.